Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Gingrich, Livingston & Hastert Impeached Clinton for What? [View all]
Think Progress has a matter of fact piece that should be on LBN, if it were not for the 12 hour Rule. It is titled appropriately "What We Now Know About The Men Who Led The Impeachment Of Clinton" and it nails the Rethuglicans' for being the hypocrisy extraordinaire.
[br]
[br]
As is reflected by the Think Progress story ---
On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton on two charges related to his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. (The charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice.) The historic vote, and subsequent trial in the Senate, involved the work of three men who were elected Speaker of the House Of Representatives by the Republican majority, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert.
Almost 17 years later, with the federal indictment of Hastert for illegally concealing up to $3.5 million in hush-money, we finally have a more complete understanding of the men who led this effort.
Almost 17 years later, with the federal indictment of Hastert for illegally concealing up to $3.5 million in hush-money, we finally have a more complete understanding of the men who led this effort.
Turns out that
Gingrich was having affairs - while trying to bust Clinton for having an affair.
On the day of the impeach vote - Livingston resigned - being busted about his affairs.
As for Hastert - well, we all know now - so please don't get me started....
I'm just sayin......
[br]
3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
To be a Republican, is to swear allegiance to hypocrisy | |
0 (0%) |
|
Only good Republican - is a mute one | |
0 (0%) |
|
Thugs in power - all have dark secrets | |
0 (0%) |
|
These 3 should be put in hypocrisy prison | |
0 (0%) |
|
All of the Above | |
3 (100%) |
|
Clinton needed a butt whoop | |
0 (0%) |
|
Laser is to be put out to pasture | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I didn't pretend shit. I never said they weren't delighted to have grounds to impeach him.
merrily
May 2015
#4
Investigating him and impeaching him are two different things. BTW, they did not even investigate
merrily
May 2015
#49
Jebus. Google. The Court that heard the Paula Jones case held him in contempt for
merrily
May 2015
#11
No, the Jones case was settled because Clinton paid a chunk of cash out of court.
merrily
May 2015
#15
Did you read it? ALL of it? The article mentions reinstatement of the trial, saying
merrily
Jun 2015
#58
STOP Focusing on the impeachment. Two courts of law held him guilty of lying under oath.
merrily
May 2015
#14
Never once denied I said perjury at first. Desperate much? Still ignoring lying under oath, I see.
merrily
May 2015
#50
Again, it met all the elements of perjury. I cannot read anyone's mind to tell you why
merrily
Jun 2015
#52
Sure, Starr just didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he wasn't in the mood...or something
Major Nikon
Jun 2015
#53
Both the Paula Jones Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court found all 3 of those things.
merrily
May 2015
#31
No matter what it was, knowing they'd been after him, he sat in front of TV cameras and in
merrily
May 2015
#21
The court found that he had lied to the court while under oath. There is no question of that.
merrily
May 2015
#24
OMG, you're back about five posts ago. I haven't used the word perjury since then.
merrily
May 2015
#26
Um, no you got answers and links. Your trumped up story was the only fart and splutter in the
merrily
May 2015
#29
All three elements you described above were met. So held both the Paula Jones court
merrily
May 2015
#33
So your argument is that Starr didn't prosecute Clinton for perjury because he exercised discretion
Major Nikon
May 2015
#35
Sure he was completely guilty of perjury, but curiously was never so much as indicted
Major Nikon
May 2015
#38
To justify the never ending perpetually expanding expensive witch hunt they had against him
Johonny
May 2015
#34
Clintons approval ratings during the impeachment were higher than St. Ronnie's ever were
Major Nikon
May 2015
#41